FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351  
352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   >>   >|  
asted with the parching streets, That lend a tyrannous and damned light To their lord's murder; and again the picture of Pyrrhus standing like a tyrant in a picture, with his uplifted arm arrested in act to strike by the crash of the falling towers of Ilium. It is surely impossible to say that these lines are _merely_ absurd and not in the least grand; and with them I should join the passage about Fortune's wheel, and the concluding lines. But how can the insertion of these passages possibly be explained on the hypothesis that Shakespeare meant the speech to be ridiculous? 3. 'Still,' it may be answered, 'Shakespeare _must_ have been conscious of the bombast in some of these passages. How could he help seeing it? And, if he saw it, he cannot have meant seriously to praise the speech.' But why must he have seen it? Did Marlowe know when he wrote bombastically? Or Marston? Or Heywood? Does not Shakespeare elsewhere write bombast? The truth is that the two defects of style in the speech are the very defects we do find in his writings. When he wished to make his style exceptionally high and passionate he always ran some risk of bombast. And he was even more prone to the fault which in this speech seems to me the more marked, a use of metaphors which sound to our ears 'conceited' or grotesque. To me at any rate the metaphors in 'now is he total gules' and 'mincing with his sword her husband's limbs' are more disturbing than any of the bombast. But, as regards this second defect, there are many places in Shakespeare worse than the speech of Aeneas; and, as regards the first, though in his undoubtedly genuine works there is no passage so faulty, there is also no passage of quite the same species (for his narrative poems do not aim at epic grandeur), and there are many passages where bombast of the same kind, though not of the same degree, occurs. Let the reader ask himself, for instance, how the following lines would strike him if he came on them for the first time out of their context: Whip me, ye devils, From the possession of this heavenly sight! Blow me about in winds! Roast me in sulphur! Wash me in steep-down gulfs of liquid fire! Are Pyrrhus's 'total gules' any worse than Duncan's 'silver skin laced with his golden blood,' or so bad as the chamberlains' daggers 'unmannerly breech'd with gore'?[262] If 'to bathe in reeking wounds,' and 'spongy officers,' and even
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351  
352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

bombast

 

speech

 
Shakespeare
 

passages

 

passage

 

defects

 
metaphors
 
picture
 

strike

 

Pyrrhus


undoubtedly
 
faulty
 
narrative
 

species

 

genuine

 

spongy

 
mincing
 

breech

 

officers

 

grotesque


husband

 

defect

 

places

 

chamberlains

 

disturbing

 

daggers

 

Aeneas

 

degree

 

heavenly

 

possession


devils

 

sulphur

 

liquid

 

silver

 

context

 
reeking
 
reader
 

occurs

 

wounds

 

grandeur


Duncan
 
unmannerly
 

golden

 

instance

 

writings

 

Fortune

 
absurd
 

surely

 
impossible
 

concluding